Going to war over culture

[MDA]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
I think what Anunikoba was saying in his first post is that this concept has interesting real-world implications:

"We must attack them to prevent them from creating cultural achievements that might threaten our paradigms." Hey, wait, now I understand why the US are so warlike.

We're just over 200 years old (as a country), we don't have much of our own culture yet! Melting pot, just like on the Saturday Morning Cartoons.

[Jason Beaudoin]

The greatest contribution that the United States has made to the rest of the Earth is their culture. To say that the United States doesn't have much of a culture is rediculous, for it is their culture that has had a far reaching impact on the rest of the world.

[Faboba]

You'll be able to take border cities on the brink but no more. Firaxis have been very about it.

You will probably never be able to take a capital by culture. I suppose if civs restart after being defeated then their capitals, may be taken over by culture but beyond that it's doubtful.

Also when you take a city, by conquest or culture, it's pretty hard to get it's culture up because all the buildings created by the previous owners aren't generating culture for you ( not for them either anymore but..... ) so you'd have to knock it all down and rebuild ( and they wouldn't have the time factor )

[dennis580]

The way I understand it to be is when borders overlap. The Civ with the stronger culture takes the individual cities who boarders has overlap with his empire.

[MDA]

Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin
The greatest contribution that the United States has made to the rest of the Earth is their culture. To say that the United States doesn't have much of a culture is rediculous, for it is their culture that has had a far reaching impact on the rest of the world.

It was a joke - in game terms a two hundred year old civ isn't going to have much culture when compared to a two thousand year old one. I think the world influence of the US has more to do with economic factors than cultural ones. "Citizens in China are in awe of your hamburgers and rap music!"

[Crouchback]

Originally posted by MDA
It was a joke - in game terms a two hundred year old civ isn't going to have much culture when compared to a two thousand year old one. I think the world influence of the US has more to do with economic factors than cultural ones. "Citizens in China are in awe of your hamburgers and rap music!"

Yes, but sad as it sounds they are in awe of the American Dream. Whatever way you look at it the US has been very successful in exporting their cultural paradigm.

Rather than giving them diplomatic advantage I thing culturally superior civilizations will end up being attacked. Dan has already said posting large garrisons are a way of holding on to cities under pressure to convert, and it's a short step over the border. Personally I don't like it, but watch out Ghandi.

David

[Lorizael]

What you guys have to understand in Civ III is that it takes a looong time for culture to build up to signifigant level and once you get up high enough you are on sort of a plateau, where it takes awhile to get any farther (like the difference between Emperor and Deity).

A real world example of the spread of culture would be the Romans. Look how many people speak a Romance language. Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Romania, Canada (to some extent) all of South America. There is also a lot of Latin and Romance type language in English, the second most spoken language in the world. That is how cultural influence spreads.

Or another example, once again having to do with Rome, is the spread of Christianity. The Roman Empire converted to Christianity once it became popular. It is a bit abstract in Civ III, but it's the best (and a very good) way to do it.

And who knows, maybe some day the US will take over Canada.

And Yin, what is that thing?

[The Templar]

Bah! Chicago generates about as many culture points as Dallas...

[TechWins]

When an enemy city is taken over: All cultural points earned by that city remain, but the things (wonders, improvements) that created that culture won't help you. Example: Liverpool gets taken over and it has created 700 cultural points because of the contributing Hanging Gardens, temple, and cathedral. Liverpool will still have 700 cultural points when taken over, but it won't produce anymore cultural until new or re-built cultural contributers are created. What does this mean? If Liverpool had a 2 tile border before being attacked it still will after being taken over. I just wanted to mention the whole situation that will occur when a city is taken over because nobody else had mentioned it yet.

What you guys have to understand in Civ III is that it takes a looong time for culture to build up to signifigant level and once you get up high enough you are on sort of a plateau, where it takes awhile to get any farther (like the difference between Emperor and Deity).

This is very well put. As you increase your cultural level it will be harder to obtain the next level after that.

With this being said I think it will be rare (not impossible, just very difficult) that a city will be captured by culture. First you have to have a high level culture city. Plus that city is going to have to be on the outskirts of your civ for it to be close to another civ. On the outskirts of the nearby civ will have to be a low level culture city. Even with alll those tasks being accomplished the goal still may not be met. Even if the cultural borders of your city do expand upon the other city the other Civ could prevent it by having garrisoned units, patrolling around it's city, the other city will have to be in awe of your civ (not automatically will the other city turn over to you for various reasons*), and the other civ might attack you before you are able to culturally capture the city.

*Your civ may not have an overall high culture. The other civ may have an overall high culture. Luck may have it that the city just doesn't like you.

[Ironwood]

Originally posted by The Templar


Aside from Deep Dish pizza, what the hell is cultural in Chicago?

Hey, don't understimate the Deep Dish Pizza! Mmmm.....

As to culture absorption, realize that no only are your cities producing culture - so are the AI's cities. If a border shifts toward another civs cities, I'll bet that within a turn or two, it'll shift right back toward you. And if you're sitting there rushbuilding cultural improvements (and cities with wonders in them will likely be opposable only by other cities with wonders in them), the AI is likely doing the same on the other side of the border. If not, he's putting in a garrison to prefent assimilation. Or just plain going to war with you to crush that culture building city of yours.

The AI may not declare war simply because of culture buildup, though likely the AI will do the "jealousy war" thing it has been doing since Civ1, and continued doing in every incarnation of this game (including SMAC).

[TechWins]

Bah! Chicago generates about as many culture points as Dallas...

That's quite a compliment towards Dallas.

A simple request out of everyone: please don't let this thread turn into a discussion about the US because some people have to make ignorant comments. If one wishes to discuss these topics please do it elsewhere; possibly try the 'Off Topic Forum'.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
I think what Anunikoba was saying in his first post is that this concept has interesting real-world implications:

"We must attack them to prevent them from creating cultural achievements that might threaten our paradigms." Hey, wait, now I understand why the US are so warlike.

Umm, no. I think that was Hitler's ideas when he started WW2 close to or in Austria..

As for people feeling threatened and attacking, can someone say "terrorists"? Essentially this is exactly what is happening in the world now.

Umm, sorry to break it to you, but when was the last time the US invaded someone who didn't attack us first? Hmmm?

Unlike Germany in WW2, Japan (same time) North Korea, Russia into Afghanistan, and Iraq into Kuwait.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by MDA


It was a joke - in game terms a two hundred year old civ isn't going to have much culture when compared to a two thousand year old one. I think the world influence of the US has more to do with economic factors than cultural ones. "Citizens in China are in awe of your hamburgers and rap music!"

Hamburgers I can understand but who'd EVER be in awe of rap music?????

[Xmudder]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
I think what Anunikoba was saying in his first post is that this concept has interesting real-world implications:

"We must attack them to prevent them from creating cultural achievements that might threaten our paradigms." Hey, wait, now I understand why the US are so warlike.

I realise that you were making a joke, but the US isn't warlike. We usually only go to war or send in the marines when we are attacked or a country under our protection is in trouble.
But you can view the Islamic fundamentalists as declaring war on the US government, economy, and culture. They hate all that we stand for and would rather die (and kill) than have muslim nations adopt such evil things as equality for women and respect for jews.
We will win the war against terrorism when Islam renounces terrorism as against Islam, Allah, and Mohammed, and realise that it is the people who support and engage in terrorism who are the true servants of Satan and corrupters of Islam, not us.

[Rakki]

Hate to break your bubble XMudder, but if you knew the full extent of American involvement and interference in the politics and economics of foreign countries you wouldn't say that the USA is lily white and is the salvation of the free world blah blah blah.

And Ozymandous, as for USA invading people who didn't attack them.. umm.. Cuba. (Bay of Pigs), Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Bosnia, Kuwait... the list goes on. "Threatening US National Interests" is not exactly the same as "Attack". Not that the USA is *wrong* in sending in the troops, just that there's people out there in general who see the USA as a royal (or republican) pain in the ass interfering in local politics when they have no business (or just because they have businesses.. like oil) in the area.


It's just that the Sept11 the heat got close to home... inevitably.
(Not saying either side is right or wrong... although in this case the al-Quaeda is probably wrong by popular opinion for pissing off the USA)


Back to the topic...

But it's certainly an idea to wage a war to take out cities with dangerous cultures... particularly if your settlers have just built a city (two civs just met.. or you building a bridgehead)

Anyway, the culture thing i suspect isn't something fixed... it would probably be a chance per turn of being absorbed based on the relative culture rating so unless you have a shanty town right up next to the enemy's 3000 year ol' capital you are unlikely to see any "oh sh*t it's gonna convert next turn" scenarios)